Former Tipperary Water workers
Denis Landy raises alleged unfair redundancies and unilateral pay cuts affecting former Tipperary Water workers, seeks ministerial intervention, and agrees to pursue an Adjournment debate.
I hold the name of my county, Tipperary, in great esteem and I take great exception to it being besmirched. I wish to highlight the plight of former Tipperary Water workers who were forcibly made redundant after joining SIPTU to improve their working conditions and reverse a unilateral 8% reduction in their wages in the past three years despite high turnovers. The workers, whose employment was terminated by management on 27 August, began a peaceful protest yesterday outside Gleeson Group's warehouse in Cherry Orchard Industrial Estate, Ballyfermot, in protest at the group's unfair treatment of them. They claim that they were targeted because of their membership of a trade union and were replaced by agency staff. They were dismissed on the grounds that they were not sufficiently skilled and that the company was losing money. SIPTU organiser Mr. Graham Macken told me today that the majority of workers at the warehouse were SIPTU members and that the Gleeson Group has so far-----
Comment on this
Will the Cathaoirleach let me finish the point? It was unfair of him to allow me to go through three quarters of it before telling me that it was an item for an Adjournment debate.
Comment on this
I understand where the Senator is coming from, but the matter would be more suitable for the Adjournment. Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?
Comment on this
Yes. Will he contact the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation concerning this matter? Will the Minister adjudicate on whether the company has been in breach of the Payment of Wages Act 1991 by reducing the workers' pay unilaterally? The same company has a turnover of €261 million and made a profit last year of €4.5 million. In the Minister's opinion, through the Leader, are these redundancies legitimate and will the State make provision towards the payment of their redundancies? In the months leading up to the 100th anniversary of the 1913 lock-out-----
Comment on this
-----it is a disgrace that such a company would let staff go because they sought to join a union. I will table an Adjournment debate on the matter and thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence.